Boston Borough Council Council Size Submission Local Government Boundary Commission for England Submitted October 2011 0 Executive Summary We have based this submission on the principle of creating a Council Size which functions effectively. We have considered the factors that influence council size, as set out by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE): • The decision making process • Quasi-judicial processes – e.g. planning and licensing – what is the workload and how is it managed • The scrutiny process – what is scrutinised and how is the total scrutiny workload managed • The representative role of the elected member Since the last review in October 1996 the Council moved to a Leader/Cabinet model thus reducing the level of involvement necessary for decision making and leading to a suggestion that we could once again sustain a reduction in the number of councillors. We have also reviewed the supporting committee structures in order to strengthen the scrutiny role. Although official statistics suggest that our population is approximately 61,000 we believe that this figure could be at least 10,000 higher. With this in mind we believe that our current electorate of 47,293 which is an average ration of 1:1478 per councillor could be in the region of 2,500 higher. We have taken into consideration the criteria used to determine the number of councillors and in particular: • Growth since the last boundary review and forecast of future electorate o We are not anticipating a significant rise in the electorate based on the information from the past five years and the fact that there are no new or large scale developments identified in the local plan. However there has also been a need identified for approximately 250 new homes per year which could potentially increase the electorate by around 2,500. We also believe that the statistics for our population are higher than the official figures which could also be reflected in our electorate figures. We need to work with members, particularly those in town wards to address the issue of low registration. • Council structure and attendance at committee meetings o In the year 2009/10 overall attendance at meetings, including substitutions, was 85% o In the year 2010/11 overall attendance at meetings, including substitutions was 76% o In the year 2009/10 attendance of the Planning Committee, with substitutes, was 91% and 91.55% of decisions were made by officers with delegated powers. o In the year 2010/11 attendance of the Planning Committee, with substitutes, was 85% and 93.5% of decisions were made by officers with delegated powers. o In the year 2009/10 attendance at Licensing/regulatory and appeals committees was 58% (substitutes are not allowed on this committee) and 99.14% of decisions were made by officers with delegated powers. o In the year 2010/11 attendance at Licensing/regulatory and appeals committees was 53% (substitutes are not allowed on this committee) and 99.87% of decisions were made by officers with delegated powers. We recognise that the decline in attendance for 2010/11 could be attributed to the fact that it was a pre-election year and that some members may have decided to stand down. We also recognise, and more importantly, are not suggesting that a lack of attendance automatically equates to a lack of representation for the electorate. • Demands from individuals and communities on ward member time o With many of our wards situated in rural locations there is an additional demand on the time of the councillors representing those wards. Additionally, some of our wards have more than one member which in itself can increase the workload as there is no designated ‘patch’. For those members serving on wards within the town centre Parish Councils do not exist and so they cannot spread the workload. 1 Recommendations Considering all of the evidence summarised above we recommend that the current Council Size be reduced by 2 councillors to 30. The rationale for 30 is that we can allow 8 for Cabinet, 2 for Mayoralty and 20 to ensure that our regulatory, scrutiny and other committees have adequate representation and can continue to function effectively. Although we cannot prescribe the number to sit on Cabinet, this would be up to individual Leaders, we have taken 8 as an average. Our intention is then to use the following model to structure our regulatory committees: Licensing 13 a reduction from 15 Planning 11 a reduction from 13 Scrutiny 11 no change Scrutiny 11 no change Audit 9 no change As it is good practice, we will continue to have an odd number on committees to try and avoid equality of votes. If attendance on committees continues to decline we believe that they will still be sustainable with 30 members, but anything less may impact decision making. In addition to this a reduction of 2 members will increase the ratio of electorate to councillor by an average of 98, and it is our view that to reduce the number of members any further will detrimentally affect representation. 2 Introduction This submission forms Boston Borough Council’s response to the LGBCE for an Electoral Review. Boston Borough Council has 32 Councillors who represent the people of its 18 wards. Following the May 2011 Local Government Election, the Council comprised: 18 Conservatives, 5 Independents, 4 Boston District Independents, 3 Labour and 2 English Democrats. All members are elected for a four year term. In May 2011, following the local elections, 19 new councillors were elected. The Council moved to a Leader/Cabinet model (recently confirmed as the ‘strong leader model) in 2000 and has recently reviewed the supporting Committee structures to strengthen the scrutiny role. Background The initial stage of an Electoral Review is to determine a preferred Council Size. This is the number of Councillors required to deliver effective and convenient local government (choosing the appropriate number of members to allow the council and individual councillors to perform most effectively). This will subsequently determine the average (optimum) number of Electors per councillor to be achieved across all wards of the authority. This number is reached by dividing the electorate by the number of Councillors on the authority. Guidance from the LGBCE states that “All proposals on Council size, whether for changing the existing size or not, should be justified and evidence must be provided in support of the proposal.” Guidance on Calculating Council Size Guidance issued by the LGBCE suggests that the following issues should be considered when developing a proposal for Council Size: Managing the business of the Council The model of local governance used by the local authority impacts on the workload of councillors and the working practices of the council, and therefore will have an effect on the number of councillors needed by the Council. The functions of Scrutiny, regulatory committees, Outside Bodies and Others – The structure and responsibilities of these functions impact on the workload of councillors. Representational Role: Representing Electors to the Council and the Council in the Community – The role and responsibilities of councillors, especially if there have been any significant changes since the introduction of the Local Government Act 2000 (LGA) and the Local Government Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (LGPIH 2007). Each of these issues is considered in the following pages of this Submission, which presents the case for the recommended Council size for Boston Borough Council. Managing the Business of the Council The Local Government Act 2000 fundamentally altered the political management of local authorities by separating executive from non executive functions. Previously Boston Borough Council had a range of committees each with its own remit and responsibility for overseeing a function of the Council. Each committee was politically proportionate. The LGA 2000 is significant as, whilst Full Council now sets the broad Policy and Budgetary framework, executive decision-making is the responsibility of the Cabinet. There is no requirement for the Executive to be politically proportionate and it is currently comprised solely of the members of the controlling group. The role of the executive is to ‘propose the policy framework and implement policies within the agreed framework’. The role of non-executive councillors is to represent their constituents, share in the policy and budget decisions of the full Council, suggest policy improvements, and scrutinise the Executive’s policy proposals and their implementation.’ 3 Electoral Reviews The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is the body responsible for electoral arrangements in England. The Commission keeps under review the levels of electoral representation to ensure that equality of representation is maintained in light of population changes within areas. The Commission has a programme of periodic electoral reviews, the last Electoral Review of Boston was carried out in October 1996; at this point the Council was served by 34 councillors across 17 wards. During the review the Electoral Commission found that the existing electoral arrangements provided unequal representation of electors in Boston because: • In 11 of the 17 wards, the number of electors represented by each council varied by more than 10% from the average for the borough • In two of the wards, Swineshead and Holland Fen, the number of electors represented by each councillor varied by more than 40 per cent from the average • By 2001 the number of electors per councillor was thought likely to vary by over 10% from the average in 12 of the wards The final recommendations following the review were that • Boston Borough Council should be served by 32 councillors, as at present • There should be 18 wards, as at present • The ward boundaries of 14 of the existing wards should be modified, while three wards should retain their existing boundaries • Elections should continue to take place every four years When undertaking a review the Commission has regard to a statutory criteria based around three broad principles.